Kerala High Court
Ashtama Thilakan vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd on 23 June, 2026
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
1
2026:KER:51553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1948
MACA NO. 2154 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.01.2024 IN OPMV
NO.1810 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA/ I ADDL. M.A.C.T. /M.A.C.T.,
PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANTS:
1 ASHTAMA THILAKAN
AGED 68 YEARS
PUTHALAVILA VEEDU, KULAKADA EAST.P.O, KOTTARAKARA
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691521
2 RAJI
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. ASHTAMA THILAKAN PUTHALAVILA VEEDU, KULAKADA
EAST.P.O, KOTTARAKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691521
3 ADHEENA THILAK
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O. ASHTAMA THILAKAN PUTHALAVILA VEEDU, KULAKADA
EAST.P.O, KOTTARAKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691521
BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)
SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM
SRI.KURIEN BIJU
RESPONDENT/:
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
G.E PLAZA,AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA,PUNE REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGER, PIN - 641100
BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB
SMT.V.MANGALA VENKETARAMAN
SRI.MOHAMMED SAHIL P.M.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.06.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.1271/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
2
2026:KER:51553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1948
MACA NO. 1271 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.01.2024 IN OPMV
NO.1810 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA/ I ADDL. M.A.C.T. /M.A.C.T.,
PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/:
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA, PUNE, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SENIOR EXECUTIVE LEGAL, ANN MARY FRANCIS, AGED 29
YEARS, D/O P.J. FRANCIS, BRANCH OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR,
PUKALAKKAT MADHURAMITTAM TOWER, EDAPPALLY PALACE
ROAD, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 411006
BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB
SRI.MOHAMMED SAHIL P.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 ASHTAMA THILAKAN
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O KUNJU PANICKAN, PUTHALAVILA VEEDU, KULAKKADA EAST
P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691521
2 RAJI
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O ASHTAMA THILAKAN, PUTHALAVILA VEEDU, KULAKKADA
EAST P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN -
691521
3 ADHEENA THILAK
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O ASHTAMA THILAKAN, PUTHALAVILA VEEDU, KULAKKADA
EAST P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN -
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
3
2026:KER:51553
691521
4 SAMUEL KUTTY C.I.
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O IYPE GEORGE, BETHEL HOUSE, NELLIKUNNAM P.O.,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691520
BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.BIJU (MANJINIKARA)
SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM
SRI.KURIEN BIJU
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.06.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.2154/2024, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
4
2026:KER:51553
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2026
MACA No. 1271 of 2024 is preferred by the Insurance
Company to challenge the exorbitant compensation awarded by
the Tribunal. Conversely, MACA No. 2154 of 2024 is preferred
by the dependents of the deceased, who seek an enhancement
of the quantum of compensation.
2. The common facts underlying both appeals are that on
18.11.2018, the deceased, a 22-year-old student, was riding a
motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-24/K-3464 along the
Kottarakkara – Adoor MC Road. When he reached the Enathu
Bridge, he was knocked down by an autorickshaw bearing
registration No. KL-24/G-4589, which was driven by the first
respondent in MACA No. 2154 of 2024 in a rash and negligent
manner. The victim sustained fatal injuries and was
immediately shifted to the hospital, where he succumbed to his
injuries on the same day (18.11.2018) during the course of
treatment.
3. It was claimed that the deceased was earning
Rs.25,000/- per month. The claim petition was preferred by his
legal heirs, his father, mother, and sister, who were stated to
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
5
2026:KER:51553
be his dependents. The claim petition sought compensation
amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- limited to Rs.35,00,000/-, against
which the Tribunal awarded Rs.32,31,000/-.
4. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is
primarily directed against the fixation of the deceased’s income.
It is contended that the Tribunal erroneously fixed the monthly
income at Rs.15,000/- and further added 40% towards future
prospects, thereby fixing the monthly earning capacity of the
deceased at Rs.21,000/-. In support of these contentions, the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant in MACA No. 1271
of 2024 relied upon Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13
SCC 236] and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735],
arguing that the notional monthly income should have been
fixed at only Rs.11,500/-. The appellant contends that the
Tribunal committed a serious error by fixing the monthly
income at Rs.15,000/-.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in MACA No. 2154 of 2024 contended that although
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
6
2026:KER:51553
the deceased was a student of B.Sc. (Interior Design and
Decoration), he was simultaneously working because his father
was unemployed, making the deceased the sole breadwinner of
the family. In support of this contention, the learned counsel
relied on a reported decision of this Court in Nanu K. v.
National Insurance Company Ltd. [2024 KHC 7373]. In
that case, the victim of the accident was a final-year B.Tech.
student in Mechanical Engineering. While the Tribunal had fixed
the notional income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/-, this Court,
after an elaborate consideration of the materials on record, the
date of the accident, and the increased future prospects and job
opportunities for engineering graduates, enhanced and fixed the
notional income at Rs.22,000/-. The learned counsel for the
appellant vehemently relied upon the said judgment to seek a
similar enhancement.
6. However, as per various decisions rendered by the
Apex Court in the year 2026, a clear view has been taken that
in the case of skilled persons, the income can be assessed in
accordance with the minimum wages notification issued by the
respective State Government. Going by the contentions and
materials on record, it is evident that the deceased was a
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
7
2026:KER:51553
fourth-semester student of B.Sc. (Interior Design and
Decoration) in the year 2018. Considering the increasing
demand for interior designers at that point in time, the monthly
income of Rs.15,000/- fixed by the Tribunal appears to be on
the lower side. This is particularly true given that the minimum
wage fixed for skilled labourers by the Labour and Skills (E)
Department was Rs.550/- per day as per G.O.(P) No. 134/2016
dated 06.08.2016. Since the deceased was 22 years old at the
time of the accident and was not a permanent earning member,
an addition of 40% is liable to be granted towards future
prospects.
7. The other contention raised by the appellant-Insurance
Company in MACA No. 1271 of 2024 is that the Tribunal
committed a serious error in treating the married sister as a
dependent, thereby restricting the deduction toward personal
expenses to 1/3rd instead of 1/2. The appellant argues that
since the deceased was a bachelor, he would have expended
50% of his income on himself, and a married sister cannot be
treated as a dependent of a bachelor brother. It is further
contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalumol [2021 (5) KHC 28], which
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
8
2026:KER:51553
dealt with the question of whether a married daughter could be
considered a dependent of her mother. Consequently, the
appellant maintains that the third appellant, being the married
sister of the deceased, cannot be treated as a dependent.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
appellant-claimants in MACA No. 2154 of 2024 contended, on
the strength of the judgment dated 10.04.2026 passed by this
Court in MACA No. 2088 of 2016, that even a married sister is
entitled to compensation for loss of consortium. This contention
was raised relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Ajmer Kaur v. Mohinder Singh [Civil Appeal arising out
of SLP (C) No. 11469 of 2022], which was followed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in MACA No. 2088 of 2016 to
hold that consortium can be granted to siblings. Furthermore,
the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in
MACA No. 1271 of 2024 argued that the Tribunal erred in
awarding Rs.48,000/- each to the claimants under the head of
‘loss of love and affection’, whereas the learned counsel for the
claimants strongly opposed the said contention.
9. I have heard Sri.Thomas M.Jacob, the learned counsel
for the insurer and also Sri.T.K.Biju Manjinikara, the learned
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
9
2026:KER:51553
counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants.
10. Upon evaluating the contentions raised across the
Bar, it appears that the primary question to be decided is
whether the Tribunal was correct in fixing the monthly income
of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. Going by Ext.A8, the deceased
was a student of B.Sc. (Interior Design and Decoration) at
Mangalore University and had completed his fourth-semester
degree examinations in November, 2018. The accident occurred
on 18.11.2018.
11. Taking note of the findings of this Court in Nanu K.
(supra) and considering that ‘Interior design and decoration’
have become a highly demanding profession in recent years,
the deceased would have been entitled to a monthly income
higher than the amount fixed by the Tribunal. Even for skilled
workers, the State Government had fixed a daily wage of
Rs.550/-. Therefore, taking into account the increasing demand
for this profession, I deem it appropriate to fix the notional
monthly income at Rs.20,000/-. Since he was 22 years old, an
addition of 40% is made towards future prospects, bringing the
monthly earning capacity to Rs.28,000/-.
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
10
2026:KER:51553
12. Accordingly, following the principles laid down in Na-
tional Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (4) KLT
662 (SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
[2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)], the calculation towards loss of de-
pendency stands as follows:
28,000 (20,000+(40%)x12x8x1/2) = ₹30,24,000/-.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.30,24,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. Since
this amount is lower than the dependency compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, there will be no modification to the
quantum under this specific head.
13. With respect to the contention regarding the
dependency of the sister, who is a married sister, as evident
from paragraph 18 of the impugned award, I find merit in and
accept the arguments raised by the appellant-Insurance
Company in MACA No. 1271 of 2024. The judgment rendered
by this Court in MACA No. 2088 of 2016 cannot be relied upon
to establish dependency here; that case concerned sibling
eligibility for consortium, whereas the decision in Ajmer Kaur
v. Mohinder Singh (supra) dealt with the specific filial
consortium rights of siblings rather than financial dependency.
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
11
2026:KER:51553
Furthermore, the precedent regarding a married daughter’s
dependency on her mother cannot be equated with the case of
a married sister claiming dependency on an unemployed
bachelor brother. In such circumstances, the claimants’
contention regarding the loss of dependency of the married
sister is rejected.
14. Regarding other heads, the learned counsel for the
claimants/appellants submits that the Tribunal awarded only
Rs.1,44,000/- towards loss of love and affection, whereas the
remaining eligible claimants are entitled to receive a
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each, totalling Rs. 80,000/- for
two dependents. It is further submitted that, following the
guidelines in Pranay Sethi (supra), they are entitled to a 10%
enhancement for the three-year block following the 2018
accident. Accordingly, the two eligible claimants are awarded an
enhanced compensation of Rs.48,000/- each towards loss of
consortium, totalling Rs.96,000/-(Rs.48,000×2).
15. Although the appellant-claimants sought enhancement
of compensation under various other heads as well, upon a
meticulous perusal of the records available and the impugned
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
12
2026:KER:51553
award, I am not inclined to interfere with the same, as the
amounts awarded appear to be just, fair, and reasonable.
16. Consequently, the impugned award passed by the
Tribunal is modified as follows:
Sl.
No. Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified in
claimed awarded by appeal
(in ₹) the tribunal (in ₹)
(in ₹)
1 Loss of earning .... ......... ........
2 Partial loss of earnings
3. Transportation of the 10,000 10,000 10,000
hospital No modification
4. Extra nourishment ..... ...... ......
5. Damage to clothing 5,000 2,000 2,000
No modification
6. Medical expenses and 35,000 18,000 18,000
funeral expenses No modification
7 Bystanders expenses ...... ....... .......
8. Pain and sufferings 50,000 15,000 15,000
No modification
9. Loss of dependency 45,00,000 30,24,000 30,24,000
10. Loss of consortium 3,00,000 1,44,000 96,000
11. Loss of estate 1,00,000 18,000 18,000
No modification
50,00,000
Total limited to 32,31,000 31,83,000
3500000
In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed, fixing
the total compensation as ₹31,83,000/- (Rupees Thirty-one
lakhs eighty-three thousand only) with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of
realisation and proportionate costs. The respondent/insurer is
directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal
MACA Nos.2154 and 1271 of 2024
132026:KER:51553
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment. Upon deposit of the amount,
the Tribunal shall disburse the same to the claimants in
accordance with the apportionment percentage ordered by the
Tribunal.
sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
das
